Bush lied. How many people think it matters?

[Jack Rabbit]

Based on a post in another thread.

For most of us here, there is nothing new in the Downing Street documents. That Bush lied is not a surprise.

Moreover, as far as we progressives are concerned, it matters that Bush lied. First of all, it is just wrong to prosecute a war of aggression without any real provocation. However, Bush and his aides couldn't have sold the war unless they persuaded the citizens that there was a provocation, so they fabricated facts and dissembled intelligence. American citizens were misinformed by their leaders. That brings up another grievance we have with the Bush regime over the invasion. It is just wrong for the nation's leadership to deceive the citizens on matters of great public importance. It is just wrong to go to war, no matter what the reason, and leave the citizens in the dark about it.

We progressives view the world through a democratic paradigm.

America is a democracy. Democracy presumes that a legitimate government acts only with informed consent of the citizens (citizenship being universal and equal). When the leadership, which is privy to information, does not share that information with the citizens in an effort to manipulate public opinion prior to making a decision of great importance, such as going to war, then the democratic process is corrupted. The decision to invade and occupy Iraq was reached as the result of such a corrupted process; it is the greatest single betrayal of the citizens by their leadership in American history.

That is my point of view. I believe many here share it.

Nevertheless, another school of thought that says the leader knows best and we should give him the benefit of the doubt when he is conducting policy, even when he lies to the people. He is doing it for a good reason.

Let's look at the decision to invade Iraq from an alternative to the democratic paradigm. This alternate paradigm might be called elitist or authoritarian. It isn't necessarily fascist; in fact, one can find this line of thought in a great deal of American political tradition from Alexander Hamilton to William Kristol.

America is a republic, not a democracy. The proposition All men are created equal is nonsense. There is a social hierarchy because some men are superior to others; this is natural and good. The best system of government is one that places power in the hands of those best suited to rule, creating a political hierarchy that reflects the natural social hierarchy. A popular election is an imperfect way of determining who is best suited to rule; an individual voter does best to select a leader based on the confidence he has in the candidate's judgment. Once the leadership is selected, the people are expected to support its decisions and don't need to participate in the decision-making process; that process does not even need to be transparent. If the people are dissatisfied, they will have the opportunity to replace the leadership in the next scheduled popular election.

Perhaps Mr. Bush and his lieutenants knew that there were no banned weapons in Iraq and no working relationship between Saddam's government and the terrorists who attacked America on September 11, 2001. As Mr. Wolfowitz said, the leadership told the citizens there were weapons and a terrorist association because it was something the citizens understood better than whatever other objectives they had in mind in invading Iraq. If they lied to the citizens, it was for the good of citizens; since the citizens did not remove the leadership from power when they had the opportunity to do so, they must agree.

A number of holes can be shot through this argument, even if one accepts the alternate paradigm on which it rests, but we don't need to go into that now. For one thing, I don't accept that paradigm and neither do most members of Democratic Underground.

However, we should be aware that there are people who accept it and therefore believe that it is of no great moment if the leadership lies to the citizens, even about going to war.

We know by now that Bush and the neoconservatives were consciously duplicitous in making the case for invading Iraq. What we need to do is persuade people that it matters and that it was a grave offense to the very foundations of American government.

[Wetzelbill]

1. not as much as Monica's panties, evidently

[Karenina]

37. Obviously.

[TWiley]

58. After all that fuss, we should have been treated to a beaver shot.

I mean, we put up with that story for years, and the damage continues.

[ClassWarrior]

2. Read Lakoff. He says people forgive lying...

We all lie, for one reason or another. And we know that all Presidents lie. Comes with the territory in some cases - national security, etc.

What Bush** did that was unforgiveable is that HE BETRAYED THE TRUST OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. According to Lakoff, this is a much more powerful charge. I'd tend to agree with him. So I've dropped the language of "lying," and switched to "betrayal."

NGU.

[Jack Rabbit]

7. Good reply

Yes, the lies were a betrayal of trust. That is why they matter.

Bringing up the issue in post number one, Clinton lied, too. I was just as aware from moment he said I did not have sex with that woman that he was lying as I was that Bush and the neocons were lying when they said Saddam is a threat. The difference is that I didn't give two bits about Clinton's tacky trysts, but I have two twenty-something sons who can get killed as a result of Bush's web of lies.

Some lies don't matter. Others do. What Clinton did with his yang was none of my business. What Bush does with my sons' lives and those of other young Americans is very much my concern and that of all of us.

[ClassWarrior]

11. Agreed. That's why we need to say it in a way that does the most damage.

We need to make people see it the way you say it.

Read Lakoff. You won't be sorry.

NGU.

[King Coal]

55. Hold it. Clinton did not say he didn't have sex with that woman.

He said he didn't have sexual relations with that woman. Big difference.

[Jack Rabbit]

64. Big difference? Not to me.

If you need to explain the difference to me, that's the whole point.

It's still a red herring because I really don't care what he and Monica were doing. It was private behavior that didn't effect public policy and should not have become a constitutional crisis.

Bush's lies are different matter altogether. They go to the very heart of public policy. This is very much the public's business. There's nothing private about this.

[lonestarnot]

63. Premeditated BETRAYAL!

[JRob]

65. Clinton, politicians, SEX! It's always gone on... It's just that it wasn't

something that was discussed or reported. Nobody died, certainly not in the thousands.

This is far from "apples to apples" here. People; women and children, American kids, mothers and fathers die every day... the suffering is unconscionable.

God please, let someone try that tact with me regarding Bush being proved a liar...

Great post JR.

[kittenpants]

18. similar to Alterman's 'When Presidents Lie'

from what I've read so far. We except dishonesty to some degree, but the political consequences of lying and getting caught (especially in taking us into freaking WAR) are never good.

[Jack Rabbit]

30. I haven't read Alterman

Clinton lost a lot of public goodwill over his lies, even though they were about a matter of little consequence. Most people realized that he was not guilty of an impeachable offense, but at the same time resolved to lock up their daughters when he came to town.

Still, Bush and his aides have lied about matters of consequence and he has been caught. Unlike Clinton, he and his aides really warrant impeachment and removal.

[Jackpine Radical]

51. Thanks for reminding us of Lakoff, CW.

[kentuck]

3. Unfortunately, it probably does not matter to the majority....

Because if he lied because he was taking out a "threat" to our nation, after being attacked on 9/11, that is alright with most people. Bush and his people understand that simple fact about the American people and will manipulate to the end of the world.

[ClassWarrior]

5. Exactly. He had a reason, they figure...

That's why we need to move the playing field. See my post above.

NGU.

[Jack Rabbit]

10. But he wasn't taking out a threat

Iraq was not a threat. Saddam was a paper tiger.

That what's makes him a liar. Moreover, he knew this. That makes it even worse. The lies were deliberate and calculated to manipulate public opinion.

I agree with Class Warrior that these lies, which involve public policy, are a betrayal of public trust. That's what makes them important, as opposed to Clinton's lies.

[kentuck]

28. True...

But many people still believe his lies that Saddam was a threat.

[Jack Rabbit]

29. Thankfully, you are now being contradicted on that point

That should make you very happy.

The original post on which this thread is based comes from another thread concerning an online poll that shows 95% of over 50,000 respondents believing that Bush "misled" the American people in order to go to war against Iraq. Of course, this is not a scientific survey, but it isn't something to sneeze at, either.

The DSM is making more people aware of the fact that Bush lied and lied deliberately. This can no longer be denied with a straight face. The question is whether enough people are outraged about it.

[kentuck]

38. Once Bush supporters come to that conclusion...

it will be bad news for Bush Co.

[Jack Rabbit]

41. And some are

Take, for example, "Freedom Fries" Jones.

[BlueEyedSon]

4. We are going to need a preponderance of hard evidence to break

through their "plausible deniability."

[Jack Rabbit]

12. That's what the Downing Street documents are

The regime has been stripped of any plausible deniability.

[BlueEyedSon]

24. I hate to say it, but the DSM is just a good start

not the whole enchilada, as far as the MSM & sheeple

[Jack Rabbit]

27. I agree there's more out there

The MSM has been slow to come around and the Washington Post in particular is putting up a mighty resistance to the obvious.

However, the DSM shows that Bush's allies in the British government knew that the case against Saddam was "thin" and, in regard to facts and intelligence reports that could be used to support a case for war, that to simply allow the chips to fall where they may was not going to be sufficient. The documents show unequivocally that the regime made the decision to go to war independent of facts and then looked for facts to support the decision.

This is not, in my judgment, a "smoking gun". A smoking gun (i.e., evidence that would prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt) would be documents similar to the DSM that originated in the White House or Pentagon. However, the DSM could support a case for impeachment.

The Downing Street documents may not be the conclusive criminal evidence against the regime we'd like to have, but they probably lay on the last thin layer of dirt covering the smoking gun.

[ananda]

6. ermm, America is not a..

.. democracy.

Bush and his admin do not care what the majority of people think. They do not hold themselves accountable to anyone without corporate or theocratic sponsorship of their agenda.

Sue

[MissWaverly]

8. your argument is for a dictatatorship not democracy

A dictator can rule w/o any input from those below him, he uses his power as a weapon to weaken all who oppose his wishes, he ruthlessly seeks out any opposing opinions and destroys it, I remember a Serbian leader commenting on a demonstration, "Just shoot the protestors, just shoot all who oppose us." He bullies the media so that it becomes a
propaganda arm for his lies, his lies have one purpose only to fulfill his needs, there is no greater good, there is only the desire to accomplish his own ends, he doesn't want any teamwork or cooperation, no head shall be higher than his. Those below him are servile, syncophants
who mindlessly chant his opinions. He will decree his wishes and there is no going back, no compromise, no reality checks, he will drive on and on over the wishes of others, to enforce what he decrees to be the public good; he is incapable of turning back.

[Jack Rabbit]

15. I agree that is what "my" argument is

I hope I don't have to defend myself in saying that it isn't "my" argument, but my summation of the argument presented by the regime's defenders.

Even Hamilton, who is not my favorite Founding Father, believed in checks and balances and separation of powers. I believe he would be concerned about Bush's assault on constitutional principles, even if he might share some of Bush's overall pro-corporate goals.

[MissWaverly]

19. what bothers me most is no creditbility on any issue

there seems to be not one issue that has been dealt with in a straight forward way, even the facts on cattle grazing were manipulated.

[Jack Rabbit]

25. Again, I agree

You might be interested in this thread that I started last night.

Every administration we've had, even Lincoln's, fudged the facts from time to time. Nevertheless, they didn't have such control over information that they could not prevent a meaningful discussion of public policy. As Lincoln said, "you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

It seems to be the mission of the Bushies to fool, if not all of the people, enough of them all of the time so that it doesn't matter what better informed people think. This is not only over going to war and the causes and impact of global warming, but over the cost of Medicare reform, the impact of Social Security privatization and just about anything else.

The regime is aided in this by large, corporate-owed media outlets (the mainstream media) that have in the last thirty years fallen into fewer and more homogeneous hands and just happen to be some of the same hands who foot the bill for Bush's rise to power. Amy Goodman is right to ask whether or not it would make any difference if there were kind of formal government censorship of the media that characterized twentieth-century totalitarian states.

I am not a knee-jerk pacifist, but I marched in the great anti-war demonstrations of February 2003 and others at that time because I knew that Bush and his lieutenants had not made their case for war against Iraq, that most of what they said had been refuted and that intelligence had in fact been politicized; that they continued to repeat discredited arguments led me to surmise that they were just lying. But I got my information not from the corporate MSM but from the foreign press and from alternative media. People who got all of their news from CNN or The New York Times were just as badly misinformed as those who watched FoxNews, a shameless propaganda outlet, 24/7.

In addition, the regime finds nothing wrong with spending public funds to create fake news reports for the purpose of promoting their initiatives. These reports are provided to local television stations, who often don't let their viewers know how the report came to be produced. This is just outright government propaganda.

The two-pronged attack on information from the Bush regime and the corporate media have had a devastating effect on public discourse. That is fatal to the health of a democratic state, or any state in which the legitimacy of the government depends on some kind of popular consent.

[MissWaverly]

44. thanks for the link to the global warming thread

I was listening to Brad Friedman's show last night, he had a whistleblower who had worked with the global warming information. He said that it was heartbreaking to see the scientists working so hard to
do an analysis that would meet scientific standards only to see their
data corrupted once it reached the WH, which is why he finally quit.

[mopaul]

9. i'm sure it was for the good of us all

it's o.k. that they lied, it's for our own good. i've actually heard this phrase uttered allowed.

[ClassWarrior]

16. That's what I imagine it looks like to those who aren't paying attention.

That's why we need to move the playing field. Don't say he** lied (it was for the good of us all), say HE** BETRAYED THE TRUST OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE (that's not good for anybody!).

NGU.

[moobu2]

13. It all depends on how it goes in Iraq

Bush knows it, that's why he's dropped his speeches on domestic issue (ruining Social Security etc..) and has begun to conduct the propaganda campaign that invading Iraq was worth the cost ("even if I lied to accomplish it" opps)

If Iraq continues to go badly, Americans will turn against Bush regardless. If it turns and starts to improve,they'll forgive and forget.

[converted_democrat]

14. I think it's a big deal, but hey, I'm just a tax paying citizen.....n/t.

[shadowknows69]

21. yeah what do you know. you couldn't be elected.

[converted_democrat]

26. Trust me, I couldn't be elected................

I call, write, and fax my officials everyday, it's done very little good, but I do it everyday anyway.

[rustydog]

17. It matters to the 18 month old twins in Yakima who lost daddy

to Bush's fucking lie.
They will never know daddy. He WOULD BE ALIVE TODAY except for Bush's lie.

[shadowknows69]

20. we don't elect our leaders to "know what's best for us"

we elected them to listen to our desires so they can implement them on the world stage. our president and congress are supposed to be our spokespeople not our rulers.

[Sather Gate]

22. Here is what Booosh and Free Republic think about

your opinions
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1426087/posts

[lpbk2713]

23. Thanks to the illegal invasion the BFEE will be wealthy for generations.

Long after their criminal acts are forgotten the Bush and Cheyneyburton families will still be filthy rich.

[DemBones DemBones]

31. "It's not the sex, it's the LYING" was their mantra

against Clinton. But mere evidence of LYING isn't enough against Bush*?

No, we must talk about the BETRAYAL and about all the American men and women killed in Iraq.

LIVES LOST are a hell of a lot worse than children having to be told about oral sex -- something that was necessary because of the media, not because Bill Clinton was the first president to have oral sex.

(Besides, JR, did Clinton actually lie? When he said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinski," I knew immediately that he meant "We didn't have intercourse but there was some hanky-panky I'm hoping won't be revealed." So I've always maintained that he didn't lie in that statement, and I can't recall one that was an outright lie.)

[bpilgrim]

33. zactly - the Neanderthals done most the leg work for us!

Neanderthals means reTHUGlican :evilgrin:

peace

[Jack Rabbit]

34. What is your definition of "is"?

As far as I'm concerned, Clinton lied (got that, lurking Freepers?) It was one thing to say he didn't in a court that allowed him a legal loophole to say he didn't, but quite another to make that statement at the end of a press conference. When he did that, he was talking to me, and my definition of what sex is encompasses many distinct acts, including a blow job.

Like you, I knew what he said wasn't the truth, but I didn't care. While I think Clinton was a good president, his penchant for equivocation was annoying.

In addition to that, he volunteered false information; he was not asked a direct question about what he and Monica were doing. He should have just kept his mouth shut. Even if he had been asked a question from the press, he would have done to say, "An attorney has advised me to not answer specific questions about that matter." Even if he was equivocating and the "attorney" was really his own inner voice, I would have accepted that.

[killbotfactory]

32. He had to lie, because the real reason was insane

And anyone who knew anything about the region told them so. Unfortunatly, they were ignored.

[Jack Rabbit]

35. He had to lie because the real reason was to install a colonial regime

The real reason was to replace Saddam's gang of murderers with his own den of thieves.

That is something the American people would not have accepted, even to oust a thug like Saddam.

[killbotfactory]

43. Proof neocons are fucking morons

The American people would never accept this kind of shit because they are smarter than the average neocon. But put a neocon in power, and give them a compliant media, and the bullshit echo chamber does the convincing for them.

[DemBones DemBones]

36. A mantra to use is "When Bush lied, Soldiers died"

or some variation thereof. Think I'll visit the freeway blogger and see what his latest slogans are. . .

[MaryBear]

39. BETRAYAL of Public Trust is the mantra to use.

It is much less likely to stimulate knee jerk disagreement of LIE.

On Clinton -- read his book, then talk more about what he did if you wish.

BUSH, BETRAYOR of PUBLIC TRUST.

BUSH, TRAITOR? Too true, but again more likely to bring on knee jerk reaction.

BUSH, BETRAYOR OF PUBLIC TRUST

BUSH BETRAYED PUBLIC TRUST

BETRAY

BETRAYED

BETRAYAL

begins to sound like nonsense word, all too appropriate for a senseless oligarch.

[Jack Rabbit]

40. Good post, Mary

:loveya:

I think you and Class Warrior are right on this. Betrayal of trust puts this beyond the travesty of the Clinton impeachment. Clinotn didn't betray the public's trust; he betrayed Hilary's trust.

This is not a matter of private behavior. This is a matter of great moment.

[DemBones DemBones]

48. I don't think that pointing out that BUSH'S LIES COST LIVES

is ineffective. BUSH BETRAYED US is a good meme, as Jack Rabbit said in the OP, but most people think in simpler words. The Republicans knew that when they used "It's not about the sex, it's about the lying" as their meme.

Their meme got people to focus on Clinton having LIED to them so that, even if they happened to be people who thought the president's sexual peccadilloes were a private matter, they'd be pissed that he LIED to them. I had too many arguments with Clinton supporters who were pissed that "he LIED to us" to think lying is considered unimportant by Americans.

"BUSH LIED, SOLDIERS DIED" is about as concise as it gets and focuses on WHY the lying is important, why lying IS betrayal.

But it's a BIG scandal; there's room for more than one meme

[biggles1]

52. "Bush lied, Soldiers died" sums it up,

and it also represents a growing problem for good ol' Chimpy.

Without wanting to appear insensitive, it won't be long before the number of troops sacrificed in Iraq surpasses the number of US citizens killed in the 9/11 attacks (around 2400 I believe).

What will George's base of support be like once it is realised that HE will have been responsible for MORE American deaths than the terrorists have....!?

[newyawker99]

53. Hi biggles1!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[stevietheman]

61. And what if it turns out...

the number of war dead is being seriously underreported? If this kind of story ever made the mainstream news, all hell would break loose.

[Jack Rabbit]

42. Kick

I'm going to see 94-year-old Mr. Rabbit on Father's Day.

This has been a good discussion.

[KnowerOfLogic]

45. Yes, Bush lied, but most war supporters didn't care if the case for

war was legit; they were really just looking for an excuse to justify lashing out at any convenient arab target. It was not america's finest hour, that's for sure. Americans share the blame; yes, Bush lied, but most americans didn't care what the truth was.

[DemBones DemBones]

49. Talk about AMERICAN DEATHS IN IRAQ and they'll care

about the lies. With over 1700 dead now, and so many deployed, the war must be hitting home to more and more people. To cite a couple of personal examples: a soldier from here was killed last year, the first from this city to die in Iraq, and several of my friends know his mother; also, I know a couple whose son is now a Marine serving in Iraq, actually went to a baby shower for him about 1979. Those two lives aren't more important than others but they are more real to me. The more the war becomes real to people, the more likely they'll question its purpose.

[grumpy old fart]

62. As with every war, it will take more lives and treasure before it grinds

to it's inevitable wasteful end. Kerry's words, (quoting someone else?) about telling someone they are to be that last to die for a mistake are so very true in this instance. This illegal war of aggression, hubris and greed is easily the most colossal evil, criminal blunder by any U.S. administration in the past century. The only way to save this situation, and NO ONE will be willing to do this, is to admit that this was the absolute worst way of going about accomplishing what may have been a noble idea, that it was not well thought out, planned, executed, etc....we take full responsibility, but that we must stop the bleeding NOW. We cannot ask another soldier to die for what is obviously a horrendous mistake. How these criminals sleep at night is beyond me. How they go through they day knowing that more soldiers are dying every day while they continue on with this lie....mendacity, mendacity....

[DemGirl7]

46. It matters to alot of people

the problem is that media where most people get their news from is controlled by the right wing, so it doesn't matter to them enough to report, because they are nothing more than lapdogs, and don't do a damn thing about it, plus it doesn't involve sex, so people just turn it off if it's even on and watch something more entertaining.

[Jack Rabbit]

47. Another kick

After returning from where my son bought an excellent early supper for me and Old Mr. Rabbit.

[MojoXN]

50. I CARE!!!

And I couldn't agree more. Great post! On the other hand, good luck convincing those who have not yet awakened from the mass media imposed stupor. I got rid of TV, and it's the best decision that I've ever made. I highly recommend it!

MojoXN

[cthrumatrix]

54. it's only the war profit politicians and companies that don't care

unfortunately our press is grouped in with $$$ coporations and can't report news anymore

[Jack Rabbit]

56. As Charles Foster Kane said

I'm something of an authority on what the public will think.
--From the motion picture Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, 1941), screenplay by Herman Mankiewicz and Orson Welles

[AuntiBush]

57. How Does One Persuade Those That Still Blame Clinton For Everything

And believe a consenting affair with an adult is worse then everything * has created... how?

While many seem to be awakening, there will always be those that only see their world thru Faux News-like mentalities fueled by hatred, predjudical thoughts, close-minds and fears.

And then you have the wealthy whom don't give a damn.

[Amsterdam Hooligan]

59. If this was a Dem President

the Republicans would be screaming impeachment from every rooftop they could get to. Because it isn't...... they are scampering around ignorantly blissfull of all that Bush has done and defensive of every criticism thrown his way.

[stevietheman]

60. Well... to be precise...

The U.S. is indeed a republic but "with a democratic tradition". And historically, gradual reforms have made the republic increasingly democratic in nature (near-universal suffrage, direct election of Senators, ballot initiatives, etc.).

In short, the U.S. is a republic, but it has a democracy. (Or, it is supposed to have one, anyway)

At any rate, the American democracy is still very much in the development lab. And the contemporary GOP is trying to stifle the experiments.

[stickdog]

66. If he lied for our own good, then what were his real reasons? (nt)